Authored By: Yadan Tilahun
Haramaya University
Case Summary: R v Smith (1992), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915
Authored by Yadan Tilahun
Haramaya University, Ethiopia
Case Title and Citation
Full Case Title: Her Majesty the Queen v. Arthur Larry Smith
Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915
Docket No: 22281
Court Name and Bench
The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, the country’s highest court, in order that the legal principles upon which it was decided would have national effect. Seven justices constituted the bench: Chief Justice Lamer, and Justices La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, and Iacobucci. Chief Justice Lamer wrote the decision and it was a well-considered examination of the principles of hearsay evidence in criminal trials.
Date of Judgment
The judgement was handed down on August 27, 1992, after appeals and consideration of both procedural and substantive legal matters in relation to admissibility of hearsay evidence.
Parties Involved
Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent: Arthur Larry Smith
The Crown’s appellant attempted to uphold Smith’s second-degree murder conviction on the basis that the trial conduct was appropriate and the hearsay and other evidence admissible under established doctrine. The respondent, Smith, in opposition, appealed his conviction on grounds that admitting untested hearsay evidence compromised the integrity of the trial and of a fair hearing.
Facts of the Case
Arthur Larry Smith and Aritha Monalisa King, being American nationals, were traveling across the Canada–U.S. border in circumstances that combined personal travel with suspected involvement in criminal enterprise. Smith possessed a prior criminal history within the United States, which was emphasized by the Crown to suggest potential motive as well as criminal proclivity. King, on the contrary, was portrayed as cooperative and docile. Her refusal to be involved with Smith’s alleged plot to smuggle drugs became a vital element in the chain of circumstances that led to her assassination. It was reputed that this refusal somehow caused tension and disagreement between the two, which escalated in the lead-up to the murder.
In the night of the incident, King’s mother was telephoned four consecutive times by her daughter. Each was filled with information regarding King’s whereabouts, her short-term plans, and her planned course of action, amounting to an open view into her mind. The last call proved to be of particular importance, having come from the vicinity where King’s body would later be found. These words, spoken during what seems to have been a period of visible urgency and distress, formed the cornerstone of the Crown’s argument. The main legal concern was whether they were admissible, as Smith wasn’t permitted to cross-examine King, and there were questions about the integrity of the trial and proper application of the rule of hearsay.
Forensic investigation of the crime scene yielded evidence consistent with a violent and untimely death. Physical evidence, including injuries to King and timing-related signs, corroborated the chronology provided by the telephone calls. Since witness testimony was sparse, those witnesses who did turn up attested to King’s activity and movement with Smith, again corroborating the Crown’s reconstruction.
The Royal Commission trial was made more complex by the unavailability of a number of important witnesses, so that the prosecution was dependent on circumstantial evidence derived from King’s accounts to her mother. These conditions—added to the gravity of the charge, the history of the accused, and the lack of direct eyewitness testimony—created a highly complicated situation at law. The case thus required cautious judicial examination of rules governing hearsay, necessity, and reliability and balancing the accused’s right to a fair trial against the need to adduce relevant evidence to establish the truth.
Procedural History
After the preliminary investigation of King’s murder, Arthur Larry Smith was formally charged with second-degree murder in Ontario province. It was the trial court’s intimidating responsibility to determine the admissibility of evidence in a case that was largely dependent on circumstantial testimony, as King was deceased and unable to provide firsthand testimony. The trial judge allowed King’s telephone statements to her mother into evidence, classifying them as a “present intentions” exception to the hearsay rule. They were held necessary for establishing what she was doing and where she was going during the time leading up to her death. Along with circumstantial evidence of past conduct by Smith and communication with King, these phone records formed the core of the Crown case, resulting in Smith’s conviction.
Following conviction, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed in great detail and took serious flaws in the way the trial judge had handled the hearsay evidence into account. The appeal court noted that the trial judge had not enforced rigorously the necessity and reliability requirements, which are basic components of the “principled exception” to the hearsay rule established by R v Khan (1990). Having failed adequately to examine whether or not the statements were necessary and reliable enough, the trial court had erred in their admission. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal overturned Smith’s conviction and ordered a retrial, once again reaffirming the necessity for proper judicial scrutiny whenever hearsay takes center stage in criminal cases.
The Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the trial judge did not err in admitting the hearsay evidence and that the appellate court had erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury. The Supreme Court of Canada examined at length the question of procedural fairness, evidentiary rules, and the delicate balance between the admission of such critical evidence and the safeguarding of the rights of the accused with the view of deciding whether there was a miscarriage of justice.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Crown):
The Crown emphasized the established principle that when a witness is unavailable due to death, their statements should still be considered admissible, provided they meet the criteria of necessity and reliability. They argued that the legal system must balance the pursuit of truth with procedural fairness, particularly in cases where direct testimony is impossible. To
support this position, the Crown cited R v Khan (1990), which endorsed the principled exception to the hearsay rule, allowing statements to be admitted when corroborated and deemed trustworthy. Additionally, the Crown referenced R v Smithers (1988), asserting that necessity and reliability could often be inferred from contextual evidence, such as consistent reporting of facts, the spontaneous nature of the declarations, and corroboration from independent sources or witnesses. The prosecution maintained that excluding such evidence would create an unfair disadvantage for the state, potentially preventing convictions in serious criminal matters where the declarant cannot testify due to death. They argued that the hearsay statements were central to establishing both the timeline of events and the victim’s intentions, and therefore their exclusion would hinder the administration of justice.
Respondent (Smith):
Smith’s defense countered that the admission of untested hearsay evidence posed a serious risk of prejudice to the accused. The defense highlighted that the trial judge’s acceptance of the telephone statements denied Smith the fundamental opportunity for cross-examination,
which is a cornerstone of procedural fairness and a fair trial under Canadian law. Smith’s counsel cited R v B (K.G.) [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740, emphasizing that reliability must be demonstrated through observable guarantees rather than assumed from context alone. They argued that while hearsay may sometimes be necessary, its reliability cannot be presumed, and the admission of such evidence without proper safeguards could undermine the integrity of the trial and the accused’s right to challenge the evidence against them.
Legal Reasoning or Ratio Decidendi
Chief Justice Lamer elaborated on the principled approach to hearsay, emphasizing that courts must evaluate evidence individually rather than rely solely on predefined categories. The Court identified two essential criteria:
- Necessity – The evidence must be crucial, typically because the declarant is unavailable.
- Reliability – The circumstances surrounding the evidence must sufficiently ensure trustworthiness.
The Court also examined the policy implications of admissibility rules, noting that hearsay evidence has the potential to either facilitate justice or compromise fairness. By establishing a flexible, principled test, the Court reinforced its role as guardian of procedural fairness while enabling the admissibility of critical evidence when justified.
Implications and Observations (Expanded)
The R v Smith decision had far-reaching consequences for Canadian criminal law:
It contributed to the hearsay revolution, reshaping evidentiary practice and influencing future rulings in criminal trials.
The ruling clarified that reliability cannot be assumed; evidence must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Scholars have observed that this decision strengthens judicial oversight, balancing the rights of the accused with society’s interest in effective prosecution. ∙ Procedurally, R v Smith highlights the importance of meticulous trial management and evidentiary evaluation, influencing both trial and appellate court practices.
Conclusion
R v Smith (1992) represents a landmark decision in Canadian criminal law, particularly regarding the treatment of hearsay evidence. The case firmly established the principled approach, emphasizing that such evidence can only be admitted when it satisfies the dual requirements of necessity and reliability. By doing so, the Court sought to balance two fundamental objectives: ensuring the accused’s right to a fair trial and enabling the justice system to consider crucial evidence when direct testimony is impossible due to the witness’s unavailability, such as death. The case’s influence continues to shape Supreme Court rulings, legal scholarship, and courtroom practices throughout Canada.
Reference(S):
- ―R v Smith (1992)‖ (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Smith_%281992%29 accessed 31 August 2025.
- ―R v Smith (D)‖ (vLex Canada) https://ca.vlex.com/vid/r-v-smith-d-681350961 accessed 31 August 2025
- R v Smith [1992] 2 SCR 915, available at: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc csc/en/item/973/index.do.
- Peter Dostal, ‘Principled Exception to Hearsay’ (Criminal Law Notebook) https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop&title=Principled_ Exception_to_Hearsay accessed 31 August 2025.
